Good thing there aren't any people with a fixed income trying to live in their own homes here!

LOL Another increase? These people on council just do not get it! LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN YOUR BUDGET, like the rest of us have to. God!

I want to make sure that it is clear and it might not be untill council meets tonight and that is I am not asking the City to indemnify all elected officials and staff.
What I want to do, is have a discussion on process of indemnification as well how the City administration and Council decides on who will and will not indemnified. I feel the public needs to know how this process works, thanks.


Brian Skakun

1. To secure against loss or damage; to insure.  


2. (chiefly law) To compensate or reimburse someone for some expense or injury.

Brian, are you seeking a discussion on 1. or 2., or both?

 

Council is out of control when it comes to taxes.

We do not need any more increases. The City can stop spending money on foolish projects, and concentrate on the essentials.

They have to get away from the mind set of locating Federal or Provincial projects, that require the City to make matching contributions. In the end this just costs us money and leads us to support projects that are uneccessary, such as the huge $6 Million upgrade to River Road. This projecut burned up $3 Million or more of City money that culd have been used to keep our taxes down.

The $3 Million City money spent on River Road is more than the total budget for other roads in the City. Problem is there is very little traffic on River Road, and there will probably be less in the future.

If the City didnt get $3 Million from the Feds under the Pacific Ports Program this project would have never taken place.

It wasnt needed, and is a waste of money.

Same thing with the Community Energy System. The bloody system was dreamt up to access available money from the Federal Government under the Municipal Infrasructure Funds, and the Gas Tax Green Energy fund, or some such moniker.

So we will build the bloody system, and heat buildings with hot water, even though we have electricity and gas, just so that we can excess the Federal Money. The acutal benefits over the long haul of doing this is nebulous as best.

This money should have been directed to Water and Sewer if at all possible, and then again we could have avoided a rate increase.

Time for the City to start looking seriously at how they spend money, and start to do something about it.

Until we get rid of Mr Bates the problems at City Hall will not change. Tell me was it council that came up with the river road solution, was it council that came up with the energy system?

I suspect that it was the great Mr Radloff that came up with the idea as at present it is his make work project until he retires later this year. Council didn’t design or come up with the River Road project . There was some opposition to this project but it went ahead as planned by some donkey that sits in City Hall. Council is not supposed to be able to design these projects they are the final approval body.. And the soul reason they are there is to comply with the wishes of the tax payer.

It will be tough to make the changes at City Hall since the Mayor always appears to be in bed with the city manager. He thinks that because he is close to the same pay scale as the manager they should sleep together.

If you really believe that changes need to be made at City Hall Palopu Im sure that if you look around you could find someone to go with you to make a presentation to council. This is what’s lacking they need our support to give us good government..
Cheers

The running of aquatic facilities is a nicely defined operation that has little to do with other operations of the city. Bringing in other matters such as how much the City spends on other operations just makes the thing too complex when one includes the weighing of the merits of potholes versus sewers versus swimming recreation versus exhibition grounds operations versus parks operations, etc.

So the public document that Council is given for tonight's session a question of which of 3 alternatives to adopt.

1.) The proposal as outlined in the report
2.) Give consideration to applying the full proposed increase in 2011.
3.) No increases

The report outlines options to generate revenue within the Aquatic Division. The total projected revenue over the next two years as a result of the proposed recommendation is estimated at $32,000.
---------------------------------

Here is the basis on which staff recommends and increase:

Aquatic facilities in BC (Richmond, Langley, Kamloops, Coquitlam, Saanich, Nanaimo and Kelowna), which hold similar pool characteristics to Prince George were used as a benchmark assisting in the determination of appropriate fees and charges for the City of Prince George Aquatic Division. The results from the aquatic market comparison indicate fee rates for public swim admissions and swimming lessons require an increase at both the Four Seasons Leisure Pool and the Prince George Aquatic Centre. Based upon the results of the market comparison, it is recommended to phase in the fee increase over two years rather than one. A marginal fee increase over the next two years will assist in acceptability by the residents of Prince George and allow the Aquatic Division to remain within inflationary expenditures.

Listed are findings and recommendations specific to the Prince George Aquatic Centre. The child admission rate is ten cents ($.10) below the market average. The adult admission rate is thirty six cents ($.36) below market average. The youth/student/senior admission rate is thirty five cents ($.35) below the market average. It is recommended that all identified rates below market average be brought to comparable rates as identified.
----------------------------

On the face of it, it sounds quite reasonable. We appear to have rates which are below provincial average.

So, for all those who say we have the highest taxes/user fees, it appears we do not in the case of aquatic facilities.

On top of that, it appears it is proposed to bring the fees up to the average within two years. Given, of course, that some of the others, if not all, will raise their fees within that two year period, we will continue to be below average unless someone reduces their fees.
------------------------------

I am, however, much more concerned at what the report to Council does not contain. There is no mention, for instance, of a very obvious 4th option, reduce costs by $32,000 and keep the rates the way they are.

In order to consider that option I would want to know in relation to the other communities:

1. How many square meters of water surface area are there per 10,000 population
2. What is the capital investment per user.
3. What is the capital replacement cost per user.
4. What is the physical plant maintenance cost per user.
5. What is the operating cost per user.
6. How many people use the aquatic facilities.
7. What is the fee income per user.
8. What is the operations/maintenance subsidy per user.

Finally, these question to administration:

1. If the fees were increased as suggested, would the subsidy per user increase or decrease over the next two years?

2. If the fees were not to be increased, how could the apparent shortfall be avoided without increasing the level of subsidy per user.

--------------------------
Then, there are some marketing questions.

1. What is the capacity of the aquatic facilities to which we have been compared?

2. To what level of capacity are those facilities operating

3. Can we increase the number of people using the facilities?

4. How do you project a user fee increase will impact the rate of use of the facility. In other words, does the $32,000 increased income consider similar rate of use?

5. What impact has the decrease in school aged children had on the use of the Aquatic facilities?
------------------------

I thought Council might want to make some real informed decisions, rather than watered down versions which give them the impression that they are ... :-)

BTW, some of those kind of questions were likely answered at the time of budget submission when departments presented their budgets for approval.

I have not explored those submissions and so am unsure whether a suggestion of increasing fees came out of those budget deliberations.

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that all of these proposed increases are out of the the sequence in which they should happen. I see no reason why they are presented now rather than at budget time when such matters are covered in much more depth.

Could it be that aquatic revenue is down because we are over supplied with aquatic facilities? Could that be that our population is shrinking instead of growing? Could it be that the management at City Hall is not up to the task? I know I sound like a broken record but one has to try.
Cheers

I think we need to start up a tax revolt. I was under the impression that the increase on our taxes was going to be 4%, My increase on taxes was closer to 10%.

Now they want to up our dollars.

From what I understand, 30 years ago, there was about 700 city employees, 500 outside workers. Now we have 700 workers still, but only 150 outside workers. So we have 550 paper pushers. Does this mean that 150 workers are doing what 500 use to do. Nope, the city contracts out a lot of the manual work.

I think it is great that the city sublets the work, thus a staff of 150 outside workers is a great acomplishment. But to have 550 paper pushers, is a bit too much.

B.Skakun, how true are those numbers quoted????

River Road (I thought) serves a dual purpose: A road, plus a levee or dike or dam to protect the adjacent lower areas which are kept dry by a pumping system.

BTW, what are the GENERAL taxes used for which the city collects? Seems to me that the new mayor wants to keep raising fees enough until every amenity/service pays its own way (swimming pools, art gallery, water & sewer, garbage, etc...), i.e. are self-sustaining.

Shouldn't the GENERAL taxes decrease if additional money comes in through the constant raising of fees thereby freeing up amounts that used to be taken out of GENERAL taxes?

Something sure doesn't add up.

Retired...... record??? time to switch to CD or Ipod ... :-)

Excuse my intended bad language,but holy f@#!,an increase in water & sewage rates.Are you kidding me?Brian Skakun I hope you are reading this,because for over two years I have been waiting for the city to replace a curbside drain on my street.Two years ago they marked out all the nice orange lines for hydro,gas etc. and did nothing.I finally got them to come back this year,and now they have a square box painted with orange paint again,that says replace.I was given a number to quote if I had to phone back to remind them,but with the rates they charge,and they keep going up,and the wages these guys make,why should I have to keep f#!@*$% babysitting them to fix the problem.Not only that when I am out walking my dog I see the problem of plugged drains all over the streets of College Heights.So how can they raise the rates when they don't even perform the required maintenance.

Are you ever mean today gus. I dont know how to use an Ipod. I'm to old to play with that stuff.But I promise that I will never again mention that Bates needs to go if we wish improvement in the management of our City. Its not council thats the problem. Your luckey that I'm not singing the same tune as Pal.

It will be nice when your gone where ever for the next while then we will not have to read youe cermons each morning.
Cheers

Sermons? Me? LOL....

BTW, I do not have an Ipod either. I do have a CD Walkman. Now that will surely show my age ... :-)

Gus has a unique sense of humour. This medium of communication does not capture people's true essence and personalities unfortunately.
My question is this. If an employee during the course of their job encounters legal difficulties, I thought it was up to the employer to provide the resources to address the issue. And because people are innocent until proven guilty, noone can argue that Brian Skakun was in the wrong. So why isn't the City supporting him on this? I am confused.